The Right Opinion

Prediction for 2013: Obama Will Lie Under Oath

By Terence Jeffrey · Jan. 4, 2013

Looking back over the last four years, it is now obvious that the greatest symbolic moment of President Barack Obama' first term was the very first moment.

That is when Obama placed his left hand on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible, raised his right hand, and followed the lead of Chief Justice John Roberts in attempting to recite the oath that all American presidents must take, swearing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Obama and Roberts mangled the oath, a poignant precursor of their subsequent exertions to mangle the Constitution itself.

The Constitution says: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

After Roberts and Obama failed to recite these words correctly – as more than a million watched from the National Mall – Obama decided to take the oath a second time, on Jan. 21, 2009, in front of a few reporters in the White House Map Room.

“We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday,” White House Counsel Greg Craig said in an explanatory statement. “But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time.”

But if Obama' second oath-taking was essentially a symbolic gesture, it lacked the most powerful element of his first oath-taking: This time he did not use a Bible.

Why not? One answer is indisputable: It was not important to him.

Had using a Bible been important to Obama, he would have used a Bible. He might have used the Bible he read when he decided to embrace Christianity. Or he might have used one of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Bibles.

But history must record Obama did not use a Bible.

The Constitution, of course, does not require presidents to take the oath with a Bible – and not all presidents have. Yet George Washington himself started the tradition, and in his first inaugural address gave a clear indication of why.

“It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge,” said Washington.

“In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either,” Washington continued. “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.”

Seven and a half years later, in his Farewell Address, Washington argued that liberty itself was at risk in a nation where oaths were taken without “religious obligation.”

“Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” said Washington. “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

At his first inaugural, Obama delivered a far different vision of America. “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness,” Obama said. “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”

Nonbelievers? George Washington believed Americans duty-bound to “acknowledge and adore” God and that the nation could not maintain its morality if it turned away from Him. Obama called on Americans to celebrate nonbelief as part of our “patchwork heritage of strength.”

In his first term, Obama became the first president to sign federal legislation commanding individuals to buy a good or service (health insurance). Chief Justice John Roberts became the first justice to write an opinion arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do this.

Obama’s administration has declared that sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs are among the goods and services Americans must pay for through their government-mandated health insurance.

The administration is now arguing in federal court that the First Amendment right to “free exercise” of religion does not prevent the government from forcing Christians to pay for these things even when it violates their consciences and the doctrines of their faith.

Obama will soon swear a third time to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Whether he uses a Bible or not, he will be lying under oath.



Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

"He'll be a lying in a Kar, he'll be a lying with a Tsar, he'll be lyin- here and there, he'll be a lying, anywhere!"Their own pride will be their downfall. Neo-Marx pagan reprobates:w/o God, W/o Hope, w/o a future, w/o a vision. The Founding Fathers had Great Vision. Abe Lincoln(POTUS 16) was a unifier. Calvin Coolidge(POTUS 30) lowered taxes for everyone! Reagan's 8 years,are the gold standard, for free markets and upward mobility.Limited Govmint now!

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 6:35 AM

Willis in San Diego replied:

... and "He'll be lying in the State of the Union address"....

Well, didn't we all know that Rep. Joe Wilson was right back in 2009?
Gosh, I wish someone would shout it out again to his face again at this year's SOTU address. In fact a whole chorus of it.

Sunday, January 6, 2013 at 8:17 AM

TW in London UK said:

Why would Obama even want to use a Bible being as the ring he has worn for years, and even used as a wedding ring, proclaims 'Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet'. This can been seen quite clearly when the photos of the the ring are enlarged. Obama is one great big fraud, an obvious Marxist (see the well researched film 'DREAMS FROM MY REAL FATHER'), and Muslim. Now that really must have taken some doing on the part of his minders to get him into Office and ensure the media will not even report on any of it, including the phony social security numbers, and all, which if the Republican Congress really wanted this guy out they could use to impeach him, instead of which it is ordinary citizens who are attempting to get the Courts to deal with it, but not a chance of that happening as he is so well protected. The Republicans in Congress are giving him a great big pass yet again, and meanwhile lying Obama is running rings around them, and running the US into the ground with his spending, but then Marxists have never been fans of the US, and unfortunately the Republicans don't appear to have the guts to do it and be labelled as racist by his liberal pals in the media. Such a sad state of affairs for a once great Nation, who this guy will no doubt finish off completely because of the silence of those who are too timid to take him on and expose him for what he really is.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Robert in NEW Mexico said:

Mark 2:21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse".

Matthew 9: 16 "No one ever mends an old cloak with a patch of newly woven cloth. Otherwise, the patch put on would tear away some of the old, and a worse hole would be made".

There you have it, from the word of God. I bet George Washington knew it.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Robinius in Broomfield, Colorado said:

I am a conservative and an American. I am proud to be both. I am not sure of whether or not I believe in God. I keep reading all these comments referring to the bible and praising God. I don't understand why. Our government is secular. To my knowledge God hasn't appeared on earth in nearly 2,000 years - could it be he has lost interest? Man can be moral without believing in God, so please give all these bible quotes a rest. They mean nothing to me. I am finding it ever more difficult to read the comments on this post. I think maybe from now on I'll just read the articles.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Joel in Ohio replied:

I don't think you can be moral without reliance on a higher authority. If not God, who do you look to for guidance?

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Robert in NEW Mexico replied:

I will also add that there are plenty of immoral people who call themselves christians, sinners that we are.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Robert in NEW Mexico replied:

Hail, Wobinius fwom Bwoomfield. (As heard in the Monty Python "Life of Brian")
Here is an Obama quote supplied in the essay ... "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness,"

The point is that the metaphor from those biblical passages contradicts Obama's assertion. I doubt he is aware of those passages, which I assume are about 2000 year's old, when, as you said, God last visited earth.

And yes, the bible and Jesus clearly indicate that people can be moral, and not be christians. The good samaraitan is an example.

It may

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Robert in NEW Mexico replied:

Very few of us read all the comments. It's no big deal.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Toadroller in Maine replied:


I can appreciate your concern and perspective and yes, I believe that man can be moral without believing in God; man can be immoral despite believing in God.

Something to consider, however, is the second paragraph of the Declaration, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The point being, were we not to defer power to some kind a higher authority, we would have to accept rights as alienable- derived from the power and whim of man and therefore able to be deprived by the power and whim of man. I don't know if I'm articulating it well enough, but there has to be some authority beyond which tyranny cannot dare transgress. I think you might call this morality.

Say hi to Broomfield. I used to drive through from Northglenn to Niwot back in the early 90s.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Capt. Call in New Mexico replied:

A thought for you:

If there is no objective standard of morality, then any one person's standard is as good as any other. All views of morality, then are subjective, and are of equal value and importance. The question then becomes, "Whose standard (or, law) will we follow?" The answer to that question is, "He who has the (most) gold (or, money; or, power) makes the rules. Do we base our laws on the beliefs of Adolph Hitler? Or Joseph Stalin? Or, Mao Tse Dong? Or, Pol-Pot? This is very important because millions of lives depend upon the answer. The views of Hitler cost at least 6 million people their lives; the views of Stalin cost as many as 50 million people their lives. If life is not valuable, then does it make any difference? Does it make a difference if your life is one of those that are taken away for someone else to become powerful? Suppose that today we choose (or are forced to choose) the standards that Hitler set up? Millions of people then, not only Jews, are then put to death. Suppose that next week, we choose the rules of someone who doesn't hate Jews. Were those lives lost last week of no value, but suddenly this week they are valuable? Can you seee where this is heading? Someone WILL be in charge of things. Who will it be? With 7 billion people on the earth, whose laws will we have to obey? For example, say that the laws are to be based upon the views of Mr. X, and that Mr. X hates anyone named Robinius
from Broomfield, Colorado. Are you then worthy of death because Mr. X says so? There must be an over-arching, objective standard to follow, or either chaos or slavery will be the result. Now, Yahweh God says that he created the universe, and He has made the rules whereby we are to govern ourselves. We are then left with two, and only two, choices: God's way vs.any other way. This is true because God claims authority over all of creation. Which of the two ways shall we choose? The decision you make, the decision I make, and the decision Joe Blow who lives down the street makes, have eternal consequences because God has claimed authority over the lives of everyone on earth. I know whom I have chosen, and He lives forever.
Whose way will you choose?

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Willis in San Diego replied:

Robinius: Every one of us are ignorant of many things. I know I am, though most of our egos would prefer the adjective, "unaware" or uninformed.

When you say that you "don't understand why", regarding the persistent references to the Bible and praise of God, may I kindly say that you are uninformed about the history of the lives of our Founding Fathers, our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and so much more of our origins.

The fact that it takes time & work to learn about them is not a good excuse to remain uninformed. The revisionism of the true history of the United States of America is an obsession of deceitful, irreligious men.
They have spared no expense in pubic education through textbook mangling & deletions and court abuses, to eradicate the truth about the Founders and the God of Christianity from public life, and, if they could (they can't!), private life.

I hope you are interested in truth and an honest account of our history and the role of Christianity and the Bible in creating a society of matchless freedom and responsibility .... and the gradual, sometimes rapid, descent into our post-Christian modern society, and the precarious and teetering
position the USofA is in today. We have fallen far, though brave men and women will never give up. Never, never, NEVER give up! and David Barton are one among many good places to start becoming informed.

Enjoy the journey. It's worth it. Pass it on to your children, the truth will set you and them free - in mind, if nothing else! I think you will find genuine Christians to be far more patient and tolerant of an honest and seeking soul then the so-called tolerant left. It would take a deaf, dumb, and blind individual to miss their lack of tolerance of Christianity.

Sunday, January 6, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Joel in Ohio said:

Well said.
I thought that impeachment would be inevitable if Republicans took over the Senate in 2014, but may have underestimated his ability to buy the Presidency. Conservative challengers for Senate seats will continue to be attacked by progressive onslaughts, Boehner will continue to go unopposed, the media will continue its leftist lies, crony capitalists will provide the funds, central bankers will continue their Keynesian ways, and the public will be sold a bill of goods for more federal goodies.
God help us all!

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM

JAC in Texas replied:

Unfortunately, God is not going to help us. With most religions' standards of "free will," the American voters have chosen to go down with the ship, as long as they get their free cellphones. God will just sit back and say, "This is what you chose; I'm not going to bail you out!"

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Robert in NEW Mexico replied:

Amen, Brother.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

There are no morals left in the liberal side of the house. It makes no difference whether you believe in God or not because how you treat your fellow man is important. When you critizize someone for believing in a higher power no matter what that power is called then you immediately call in to question your tolerance for anyone who doesn't think like you. I believe in God and that is my right and no one has the right to mock me or call me names because of it. I don't go around telling athesists they have to believe as I do and I surely have the right to expect the same from them. However, that is not how it works in this country today. If you don't believe in the liberals agenda then that automatically means you are an uneducated, gun clinging, religious nut and must be stopped.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Tapdaddy in Indiana said:

"Obama will soon swear a third time to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Whether he uses a Bible or not, he will be lying under oath." Amen.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

How do you know a politician is lying? Answer-"There lips are moving!" POTUS 44: Out the Door and NO MORE!

Saturday, January 5, 2013 at 7:30 AM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Correction-Their lips, not there lips.

Saturday, January 5, 2013 at 7:30 AM

veritaseequitas in Fightertown, USA said:

You can administer that oath a million times and Obama The Terrible will lie a million times to match it.

Saturday, January 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Curt in Lansing MI said:

"American presidents must take, swearing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"... And what is the Constitution? A document? The arrangement of the states? The industrial base? The tax base? "State's rights"? A "Constituency"? Most Tea Partiers don't know a tea party when it's in the harbor/port. They look inward at money...

Sunday, January 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Cal in SoCal said:

Throughout history, ambitious men (is it wrong to use that word?) have lied profusly to gain power. The naive masses buy it - and give them power. It is only a matter of time how much power they abuse. The Bible is a sacred book to some, irrelevant to others. Elections have consequences. Four more years will show it!

Sunday, January 6, 2013 at 1:45 PM